If a bullet button does not remove a rifle's capacity to accept a detachable magazine then aren't all SKS's illegal assault weapons since it only takes a tool to detach the magazine?

I don't think so. Again, I'm not going to argue it here...has anyone ever won a statutory interpretation argument here after getting dogpiled at Calguns?

Here's my dilemma: I think it's a little reckless to tell people that BB equipped rifles with prohibited features are "100% friggin' legal" (bwiese said that once on one of the message boards). I don't think it's as cut-and-dried as that.

On the other hand the argument has gained a lot of traction and the risk of prosecution is low, so who can argue with results?

There is no chance of validation of the competing argument here, which is why it would be tempting for me to provide commentary in the OAL proceedings. I'd be conlicted about doing that but if it were done in the context of a wager that would be different.

There is no chance of validation of the competing argument here, which is why it would be tempting for me to provide commentary in the OAL proceedings.

So let me skip you ahead a couple of chess moves. If you're argument is actually strong, then what do our competing arguments mean for the enforcement of 12276.1 (a) itself and as it interacts with 12276 (a)(11) when the scrutiny is more than rational basis?

-Gene

__________________
Gene Hoffman
Chairman, The Calguns FoundationDONATE NOW to support the rights of California gun owners. Follow @CalgunsFdn on Twitter.Opinions posted in this account are my own and not the approved position of any organization.
I read PMs. But, if you need a response, include an email address or email me directly!

"The problem with being a gun rights supporter is that the left hates guns and the right hates rights." -Anon

Thats Mr Tool Please, and only my pinky finger and index fingers are Screwdrivers, the rest are pin punches, oh and my thumbs are anvils, since I seem to bang on them more then anything else, and did I mention I use my forhead as a hammers sometimes. lol

I need the Acronym list...dictionary...law book things...google and I still don't get half of what is being said?

Bad thread to start in - lots of background. Think of your questions and try the search button [ third heavy line down from the top, third from the right ] for significant words. Problem is, there will be LOTS of threads returned - try using Advanced Search, in only 2nd Amend. Politics and Laws, and limiting the author to bwiese.

what if anything is being done to get the DOJ (who ever) to actually rule that "evil" black guns are in fact legal with a bb installed?

As my petition shows, the DOJ BoF would rather say the law is unclear than declare the Bullet Button legal. I can assure you that if they had a leg to stand on to say it is illegal, they would.

-Gene

__________________
Gene Hoffman
Chairman, The Calguns FoundationDONATE NOW to support the rights of California gun owners. Follow @CalgunsFdn on Twitter.Opinions posted in this account are my own and not the approved position of any organization.
I read PMs. But, if you need a response, include an email address or email me directly!

"The problem with being a gun rights supporter is that the left hates guns and the right hates rights." -Anon

As my petition shows, the DOJ BoF would rather say the law is unclear than declare the Bullet Button legal. I can assure you that if they had a leg to stand on to say it is illegal, they would.

-Gene

Hoffmang,
Only being on CALGUNs a short time, when I come across you avatar I read, respect, and try to understand as much as I can. I am a lifetime gun owner (3 generations of guns in my safe), Hunter, sportsman, part time fisherman, and have lived in CA all my life. Thank you for your efforts past, present, and future!

As my petition shows, the DOJ BoF would rather say the law is unclear than declare the Bullet Button legal. I can assure you that if they had a leg to stand on to say it is illegal, they would.

Here's another wager proposal: OAL agrees a legally tenable argument can be made that a Bullet Button equipped, semiautomatic centerfire rifle has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine, notwithstanding APA-compliant, binding 5469(a) and the lawfully configured SKS fixed-magazine rifle.

As my petition shows, the DOJ BoF would rather say the law is unclear than declare the Bullet Button legal. I can assure you that if they had a leg to stand on to say it is illegal, they would.

-Gene

Seriously, read my post about trying to get them to say that a flash hider connected to a BB/P50 OLL is either legal or illegal and as I said earlier, their silence is golden. If they had anything to say about it being illegal, they would and do. However, if there is no leg to stand on, they just try to confuse you to the point that you're too scared to stand up for your rights. Know and read 12276 very well and keep paperwork with you and your EBR's!

...
I will write a letter encouraging OAL to accept the petition for review, and if they do, to not issue a summary disposition letter on the ground that the DOJ advice letter is specifically exempt from APA requirements. The letter will argue the competing interpretation (Bullet Button rifle has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine) and I can submit additional and/or repetitive commentary per the code if OAL decides to review the petition. I will transmit a copy of the letter to you at the same time I send it to OAL.
...

So Fabio, for a mere surfboard, you are willing to argue against our collective rights with a state agency.

It's one thing to play a devil's advocate, but I think that would cross the line.

So Fabio, for a mere surfboard, you are willing to argue against our collective rights with a state agency.

It's one thing to play a devil's advocate, but I think that would cross the line.

But for this issue I'd take you up on it.

-Gene

__________________
Gene Hoffman
Chairman, The Calguns FoundationDONATE NOW to support the rights of California gun owners. Follow @CalgunsFdn on Twitter.Opinions posted in this account are my own and not the approved position of any organization.
I read PMs. But, if you need a response, include an email address or email me directly!

"The problem with being a gun rights supporter is that the left hates guns and the right hates rights." -Anon

Ok I'm back from lunch. How's this: if OAL does not agree the argument in post #140 is tenable, you win. If the petition is not accepted, DOJ does a 280 certification, or OAL summarily disposes of or otherwise decides the petition without indicating whether or not the specific argument is tenable, it's a draw. The petition has to run its course, if you withdraw the petition I win.

So Fabio, for a mere surfboard, you are willing to argue against our collective rights with a state agency.

It's one thing to play a devil's advocate, but I think that would cross the line.

I think that he works for a state agency

__________________LIVE FREE OR DIE!

M. Sage's I have a dream speech;

Quote:

Originally Posted by M. Sage

I dream about the day that the average would-be rapist is afraid to approach a woman who's walking alone at night. I dream of the day when two punks talk each other out of sticking up a liquor store because it's too damn risky.

Ok I'm back from lunch. How's this: if OAL does not agree the argument in post #140 is tenable, you win.

They will never need to agree that the argument in post #140 is tenable. All they will do is say that whatever Alison wrote isn't a legally adopted and valid regulation while also not being the only legally tenable interpretation.

If you have some other legally tenable interpretation that's dandy. It's still not validly adopted - or clearly - the only legally tenable interpretation. The one I advance is certainly legally tenable.

-Gene

__________________
Gene Hoffman
Chairman, The Calguns FoundationDONATE NOW to support the rights of California gun owners. Follow @CalgunsFdn on Twitter.Opinions posted in this account are my own and not the approved position of any organization.
I read PMs. But, if you need a response, include an email address or email me directly!

"The problem with being a gun rights supporter is that the left hates guns and the right hates rights." -Anon

In the final analysis, rights in a Republic are protected by the people themselves. If civic virtu does not reside in the people - no constitution, no bill of rights, no legislative body and no court will be able to preserve our liberties.... Keep educating your neighbors and friends about the legacy of freedom that founded this nation and remind them what it takes to keep it free. --Don Kilmer

If you have some other legally tenable interpretation that's dandy. It's still not validly adopted - or clearly - the only legally tenable interpretation. The one I advance is certainly legally tenable.

-Gene

The interpretation doesn't need to be "validly adopted" and I never claimed it was the only legally tenable interpretation. What specifically would you be willing to wager on if anything?

I have a feeling we're having a disconnect on how the APA works and OAL's role in it. If you were to convince OAL that you had a different legally tenable interpretation of 11 CCR 5469, all you'd be doing is adding fuel to the fire of BoF being wrong trying to state that their own regulations are "unclear" or that "capacity to accept" all of a sudden newly modifies 11 CCR 5469.

-Gene

__________________
Gene Hoffman
Chairman, The Calguns FoundationDONATE NOW to support the rights of California gun owners. Follow @CalgunsFdn on Twitter.Opinions posted in this account are my own and not the approved position of any organization.
I read PMs. But, if you need a response, include an email address or email me directly!

"The problem with being a gun rights supporter is that the left hates guns and the right hates rights." -Anon

I have a feeling we're having a disconnect on how the APA works and OAL's role in it.

I understand the APA process and OAL's role and realize they don't need to say whether or not the competing interpretation (post #140) is tenable. So again, what specifically would you be willing to wager on if anything?

Again I'm not going to explain it here, it always ends up in the same place. I can say that hoffmang is a little too hung up on "validly adopted."

You haven't read Tidewater then.

An agency can do three and only three things.

1. Adopt a regulation through the full APA route. The 2000 rulemaking and the failed "permanence" rulemaking were examples.

2. Explain the law without conflicting or embellishing on the law or validly adopted regulations.

3. Take a position that is the only legally tenable interpretation. At best you're saying that there is more than one legally tenable interpretation - a point I don't agree with you on but then again you remain unwilling to air your supposed point of view in public or private.

It troubles me that you only want to air your opinion when you (incorrectly) perceive that it can be ruled upon in a way that would hurt gun owners.

If you're sure you are correct, I suggest you go file a writ of mandate in your local superior court as they can vet your supposed interpretation. OAL can not and will not because this is not a process to adopt a new interpretation.

-Gene

__________________
Gene Hoffman
Chairman, The Calguns FoundationDONATE NOW to support the rights of California gun owners. Follow @CalgunsFdn on Twitter.Opinions posted in this account are my own and not the approved position of any organization.
I read PMs. But, if you need a response, include an email address or email me directly!

"The problem with being a gun rights supporter is that the left hates guns and the right hates rights." -Anon